Chains of the Constitutionhttp://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com
Commentary from a Christian/Constitutionalist perspectiveFri, 26 May 2017 23:11:05 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.379044548Judge William Orrick III Must be Impeachedhttp://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/judge-william-orrick-iii-must-impeached/
http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/judge-william-orrick-iii-must-impeached/#commentsFri, 26 May 2017 23:11:05 +0000http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/?p=357The latest clandestine interviews with Planned Parenthood officials publicized by the Center for Medical Progress revealed the worst attitudes yet toward abortion. The abortionists joked about the difficulty of dismembering a baby, especially when trying to fill an order for intact body parts. Having a baby’s eyeball fall into the abortionist’s lap was laughingly described […]

]]>The latest clandestine interviews with Planned Parenthood officials publicized by the Center for Medical Progress revealed the worst attitudes yet toward abortion. The abortionists joked about the difficulty of dismembering a baby, especially when trying to fill an order for intact body parts. Having a baby’s eyeball fall into the abortionist’s lap was laughingly described as “gross.” One ghoul described pulling “off a leg or two” to prevent having the abortion be classed as a “partial birth abortion.” The moral level of the discussions was worthy of Joseph Mengele. The videos published on the internet have been reviving the movement to defund Planned Parenthood.

The federal courts have long practiced legislating from the bench in violation of the Constitution. Lately, they have pushed the envelope in their rulings against every action attempted by President Trump. But this all pales almost to insignificance compared to the action of one federal judge in this abortion interview video case. William Orrick III, a judge in California, has ruled that the videos must be removed from any place they occur on the internet, and that news media may not even quote the abortionists’ comments heard on the video. This open defiance of the First Amendment’s recognition of freedom of the press must not be tolerated. Here is the message that I emailed to Luke Messer, my Representative in the House.

Federal Judge William Orrick III has ruled, in defiance of the First Amendment, that evidence against Planned Parenthood be removed from the internet, and that news media be prohibited from quoting the incriminating statements by Planned Parenthood officials. This ruling is the most blatant action against the First Amendment that I’ve ever heard of. You need to introduce articles of impeachment against Orrick as soon as possible, preferably tomorrow, May 27. If Orrick is allowed to get away with this, Americans will have to conclude that the federal government considers the Constitution to be null and void. Where that would lead is scary to contemplate. Please honor your oath of office to defend the Constitution.

I recommend that all who read this post contact their US Representatives with a similar message. If we want any part of our Constitution to survive, we must make an example of this worst ever offense against it. If our federal government can’t or won’t protect the First Amendment, the alternatives are grim indeed.

]]>http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/judge-william-orrick-iii-must-impeached/feed/2357Federal Judges are in Rebellionhttp://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/federal-judges-rebellion/
http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/federal-judges-rebellion/#respondThu, 16 Mar 2017 13:09:55 +0000http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/?p=352Our federal judiciary has long been usurping the powers of Congress, legislating from the bench. In Roe v. Wade, for example, the Supreme Court declared a right to kill unborn children that can be found nowhere in the Constitution. In Obergefell v. Hodges, they redefined marriage to include homosexual and lesbian couples. Now, some federal […]

]]>Our federal judiciary has long been usurping the powers of Congress, legislating from the bench. In Roe v. Wade, for example, the Supreme Court declared a right to kill unborn children that can be found nowhere in the Constitution. In Obergefell v. Hodges, they redefined marriage to include homosexual and lesbian couples.

Now, some federal judges are blatantly usurping the powers of the executive as well. The recent decisions by judges in Washington state and Hawaii, denying the validity of President Trump’s executive orders limiting immigration defy the president’s power to execute the laws that Congress has established. Title VIII of the United States Code 1182 states that “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” The denial of President Trump’s orders pursuant to this law is clearly an illegal action by the federal judges.

Unfortunately, the divided state of our country’s politics has made it impossible to respond appropriately to these illegal judicial actions. The obvious reaction should be for Congress to remove the judges by impeachment. A judge’s disobedience to federal law is clearly a “high crime,” and justifies his removal. The problem is that Democrats in Congress have become so radicalized that conviction in the Senate is impossible. There is simply nothing that a liberal official could do that would get a majority in the Senate to convict him. For Senate Democrats, the highest principle is party or ideological loyalty. In this environment, impeachment has completely lost its power. The Framers of the Constitution could never have predicted this degree of partisanship.

The longest range solution is to wait for the leftist judges to retire or die, and replace them with people who will respect the Constitution and the role of the judiciary established by it. Or to educate enough voters that replacing leftists in Congress would be possible. But we need a solution that will take less than a whole generation to accomplish.

A medium range solution would be a Constitutional amendment to require federal judges to be re-confirmed by the Senate periodically. This essentially gives up on the idea of an “independent judiciary.” That would be a serious move, since it goes against one of the principles the Framers had in mind when they created the Constitution. But it may be justified, because that principle presupposes judges who are committed to the Constitution and the law. We can’t assume that any longer. In any case, we need an even more immediate response to the crisis of judicial rebellion.

The three branches of our federal government are intended to be co-equal. None of them are to be completely dominant. Judicial rebellion means that the federal judges hold themselves higher than the legislative or executive branches. President Trump should declare that these rulings are illegal, and he should enforce his legally justified executive orders in spite of the judges’ orders.

What would be the downside of such an action by the president? The mainstream media, dominated by the globalist left in the Council on Foreign Relations and other such organizations, would go ballistic, of course. But how much worse could their treatment of Trump and conservatives in general become? It seems to me that they are already doing their worst.

The Democrats and fake Republicans in Congress would almost certainly try to impeach President Trump. But it seems unlikely that they could muster even a simple majority in the House, let alone the super-majority required in the Senate. The debate would be acrimonious, but the end result would be that the president would have retained his authority as prescribed by law.

The leftist federal judges have obviously decided that there is now no limit to what they can get away with. One way or another, the survival of our Republic requires that they be brought back under the Constitution.

]]>http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/federal-judges-rebellion/feed/0352Democrat Platform Committee Repudiates First Amendmenthttp://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/democrat-platform-committee-repudiates-first-amendment/
http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/democrat-platform-committee-repudiates-first-amendment/#respondTue, 28 Jun 2016 10:01:23 +0000http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/?p=335If the national Democrat Party platform committee has their way, companies who disagree with the Democrats’ global warming propaganda will soon be prosecuted by the Justice Department. This is apparently not a fringe position in the party, since the decision to add the provision to the platform was approved unanimously by committee members. Would the […]

]]>If the national Democrat Party platform committee has their way, companies who disagree with the Democrats’ global warming propaganda will soon be prosecuted by the Justice Department. This is apparently not a fringe position in the party, since the decision to add the provision to the platform was approved unanimously by committee members.

Would the Justice Department balk at enforcing this attack on Americans exercising their right of free speech? Not likely. Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch is on record threatening to prosecute people who engage in “anti-Muslim rhetoric.” In Idaho, several juvenile Muslim immigrants are reported to have sexually assaulted a five-year old girl. The response of Obama-appointed Federal Prosecutor Wendy J. Olson? She threatened to prosecute anyone who utters “false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself.”

It comes as no surprise to see the Democrat party moving more openly toward Nazi-style censorship. But Americans in general surely won’t allow this to go further, right? Not so fast! Young Americans who’ve been trained in the increasingly radical indoctrination centers known as public schools and state universities are the future of our electorate. And they are not such reliable defenders of our (and their) free speech or other rights. A recent survey found that 40% of “Millennials” believe the government should limit speech that is “offensive to minorities.” Thankfully, that represents a small fraction of our total electorate, but it also highlights a trend toward the communist/fascist view of free speech.

Republicans in Congress: where are the impeachment resolutions against federal appointees who threaten unconstitutional actions against free speech? If you tolerate these attempts to intimidate those who exercise their rights, you are no better than the Democrats who perpetrate them. Show some backbone and stand up for the Constitution.

]]>http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/democrat-platform-committee-repudiates-first-amendment/feed/0335Why I Plan to Vote for Trumphttp://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/plan-vote-trump/
http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/plan-vote-trump/#respondSat, 18 Jun 2016 23:10:08 +0000http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/?p=326In the past, whenever faced with the choice between a socialist Democrat (oops — a little redundant there) and a less than conservative Republican candidate for President, I’ve been very comfortable voting for a third party candidate. In fact, I’ll do the same this year in the election for US Representative in my district, given […]

]]>In the past, whenever faced with the choice between a socialist Democrat (oops — a little redundant there) and a less than conservative Republican candidate for President, I’ve been very comfortable voting for a third party candidate. In fact, I’ll do the same this year in the election for US Representative in my district, given the voting record of Luke Messer. Even the third party candidates are often not that great, especially Libertarians, but I’ve regarded the vote as a statement rather than a realistic attempt to elect a candidate.

There are many reasons to be reluctant to vote for Donald Trump. He has very little in the way of conservative credentials, having donated money to the campaigns of liberal politicians, and supported liberal positions. On the other hand, he so far hasn’t surrounded himself with leftist advisors, such as members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and in the current campaign he’s made promises that, if kept, could help to reverse the dangerous course we’ve been on.

Since Trump isn’t the ideal candidate for conservatives, many have suggested that a principled voter should again go third party. As much as I’d like to cast a principled vote regardless of the unlikelihood of electing my candidate, this year I think the situation is fundamentally different. That’s because four or more years of another Clinton presidency would likely give the left sufficient time to “legalize” enough socialist immigrants to build a permanent one-party Democrat political system. It would also solidify the precedent of ruling by executive decree that Obama has run so wild with. Finally, it would deliver the Supreme Court permanently to the progressives. For all practical purposes, that would make this year’s election the last one ever. Oh, there would probably be a few more pro-forma elections, but all conservative parties would be relegated to third party status. What good would my principled vote be then?

It all boils down to the certainty of permanent national disaster under Clinton, and at least a chance that our republic would continue to limp along under Trump. Maybe we can do better four years from now. But this year, our only chance of a political solution to our nation’s decline into a socialist tyranny is the election of Donald Trump.

]]>http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/plan-vote-trump/feed/0326I’m not Pro-Lifehttp://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/im-not-pro-life/
http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/im-not-pro-life/#commentsThu, 07 Apr 2016 13:06:09 +0000http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/?p=314Donald Trump’s recent fumbling over a question of punishment for abortion has raised a flurry of responses from the “pro-life” movement. The controversy centered on Trump’s waffling over whether a mother who aborts her child should receive some kind of punishment if abortion were ever to become illegal again. Jill Stanek, Chairman of the Susan […]

]]>Donald Trump’s recent fumbling over a question of punishment for abortion has raised a flurry of responses from the “pro-life” movement. The controversy centered on Trump’s waffling over whether a mother who aborts her child should receive some kind of punishment if abortion were ever to become illegal again. Jill Stanek, Chairman of the Susan B. Anthony List National Campaign, clarified that the pro-life movement considers the mother of an aborted child to be purely a victim, not a perpetrator. By that definition, the mother bears no guilt and must not be punished. Consequently, Trump’s uncertainty over the issue calls into question his qualification as a pro-life candidate.

I’ve always refrained from calling myself “pro-life,” simply because I don’t like the attempt to make everything sound positive. I’m very happy to be known as “anti-abortion,” just as I would be happy to call myself “anti-murder, “anti-Nazi,” or “anti-socialist.” Further, since the pro-life movement is dominated by the Roman Catholic church, it has assimilated that church’s objection to the death penalty. I find that doctrine to be anti-Biblical as well as unjust and damaging to the social order. That’s yet another reason to shun the pro-life label.

Stanek’s protestations against the guilt of an aborting mother defy logic. Yes, some mothers are forced by evil parents or sexual partners to have abortions, and can fairly be called victims. The vast majority are complicit in the murder of their children in the same sense as the mobster who contracts a hired killer. The law on contract killing places responsibility for the murder as much on the one who hired the killer as on the killer himself. If our nation ever returns to its senses and makes abortion legally equivalent to murder, the mother who willingly undergoes the procedure must receive the punishment for murder along with the “doctor” and associated personnel.

]]>http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/im-not-pro-life/feed/1314Please, No Senate Recess During Obama’s Termhttp://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/please-no-senate-recess-during-obamas-term/
http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/please-no-senate-recess-during-obamas-term/#respondTue, 16 Feb 2016 16:16:13 +0000http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/?p=307The tragic death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is the scariest event of this century so far. It gives Saul Alinsky’s most successful disciple, B.H. Obama, the opportunity to pack the court with radical leftists. In fact, that is such an important opportunity for the left, that the timing of Scalia’s death is extremely […]

]]>The tragic death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is the scariest event of this century so far. It gives Saul Alinsky’s most successful disciple, B.H. Obama, the opportunity to pack the court with radical leftists. In fact, that is such an important opportunity for the left, that the timing of Scalia’s death is extremely suspicious. So is the fact that he had a pillow over his head when he was found, and the rapid foreclosure of the opportunity to investigate the cause of death. Many Americans, myself among them, would put absolutely nothing past the current administration and its allies.

As a side note, I’m sure that some readers will cite the desire of Scalia’s family not to have an autopsy. Determining the cause of death in this case is a matter of national security. No family’s sensitivities about an autopsy carries any weight compared to that. I don’t think it’s too extreme to say that his death presents an existential threat to the Constitution.

Regardless of whether Scalia’s death was an Act of God or an act of enemies of the Constitution, it puts the Senate in the hot seat. Some Senators have assured us that they will not confirm any replacement nominated by this president. That’s not surprising and I’m glad to hear it, but the Republicans who now control the Senate have consistently caved to pressure from the left. There is a real danger that they might do the same again in this case.

Yes, the one third of the Senators that are up for reelection would not be able to campaign personally in their home states. But with modern communications, they could campaign remotely. Just making it clear publicly that they are staying in Washington to protect the Constitution from the rogue Supreme Court should be enough to get Republican Senators reelected. And let’s face it; loss of Senate control would not be as bad as having Scalia replaced on the Supreme Court by another radical leftist.

So I urge the Senate Republican leadership to keep the body in session until the next president is inaugurated.

]]>http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/please-no-senate-recess-during-obamas-term/feed/0307How Americans can Nullify Anti-Christian Court Edictshttp://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/how-americans-can-nullify-anti-christian-court-edicts/
http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/how-americans-can-nullify-anti-christian-court-edicts/#commentsSun, 23 Aug 2015 14:36:15 +0000http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/?p=270Federal courts have become infamous for prohibiting anything that smacks of practicing Christianity in public venues: prayer, speech, or music; even purely instrumental music. Spectators at a high school football game in Rankin County, Mississippi have found a way to nullify the edict of their particular nemesis, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves (an Obama […]

]]>Federal courts have become infamous for prohibiting anything that smacks of practicing Christianity in public venues: prayer, speech, or music; even purely instrumental music. Spectators at a high school football game in Rankin County, Mississippi have found a way to nullify the edict of their particular nemesis, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves (an Obama appointee confirmed by Senators that we elected).

The Brandon High School marching band had prepared a halftime show that included the instrumental music to the hymn How Great Thou Art. Obeying the judicial edict, the school board prohibited performance of the show. So far, this is just like what has happened in so many schools across the country. It’s what the spectators did at a subsequent game that could be a “game changer.”

According to an article on the Fox News website, during halftime at the game, the spectators stood up and sang the hymn. Hundreds of people participated. One of the spectators is quoted in the article as saying, “This is the kind of thing that makes me proud to be from the South. We are getting tired of being told to sit down and shut up. People are ready to fight back.”

My question is, why should this be confined to the South? Organized resistance to judicial tyranny can be practiced anywhere in our country; and any attempt to stop it could backfire politically on those who make the attempt.

What if every school band were to include in their performances a perfectly secular piece that they play very quietly: at a volume that is easily overwhelmed by the crowd singing. Starting that piece would be the signal for everyone to start singing a hymn of choice (I vote for Onward Christian Soldiers), praying aloud, or whatever. It would even be possible to find hymns with the same meter as the music; for example using the metrical index in the back of many hymnals.

If an attempt is made to prohibit that particular secular music, choose something like the Marine Corps Anthem. Let them try prohibiting that and see what happens.

Other kinds of public meetings could find ways to do something similar. At a city council meeting, for example, the council could announce a ten minute break. What the audience does with that break is their business, and could include prayers, a sermon, singing, or whatever.

Am I suggesting that we should not obey the First Amendment? On the contrary, I’m suggesting that we push the government to obey the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress has made no law “respecting” (relating to) establishment of a religion. Only Congress may make any federal law; judges certainly may not. What Judge Reeves and the Supreme Court before him have done is illegal according to the First Amendment and Article I (“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”). It is up to us as citizens to restore respect for the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Defying illegal, anti-Christian judicial edicts is one step toward fulfilling our responsibility. Maybe someday we can even elect Congressmen who will reign in the rogue judiciary.

]]>http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/how-americans-can-nullify-anti-christian-court-edicts/feed/1270Are You Shocked at Planned Parenthood Atrocities?http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/are-you-shocked-at-planned-parenthood-atrocities/
http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/are-you-shocked-at-planned-parenthood-atrocities/#respondSat, 08 Aug 2015 11:26:16 +0000http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/?p=267Various Planned Parenthood officials have recently described on video how that organization sells body parts of aborted children. Conservatives, and even a few Liberals, have expressed shock and revulsion at the revelations. But does it make sense for anyone to be shocked at this? I wasn’t shocked by the videos, though I was a little […]

]]>Various Planned Parenthood officials have recently described on video how that organization sells body parts of aborted children. Conservatives, and even a few Liberals, have expressed shock and revulsion at the revelations. But does it make sense for anyone to be shocked at this?

I wasn’t shocked by the videos, though I was a little surprised at how readily Planned Parenthood people admitted such practices.

Think about the record of this organization. It was founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger, for the purposes of promoting birth control in order to free women from the fear of pregnancy in marital and adulterous sex; and preventing the births of those they regarded as substandard or otherwise undesirable: retarded people, blacks, and others. Years after their founding, they expanded their definition of birth control to include abortion.

Planned Parenthood routinely fails to report pregnancies of underage girls whose sexual partners are old enough to be considered statutory rapists if caught. Such failure is illegal, but law enforcement officials ignore it.

Doctors employed in Planned Parenthood clinics use a variety of brutal techniques to end the lives of children in their mothers’ wombs. They can poison, suck the brain out of the heads, or tear the bodies limb from limb of multiple children in a morning, then enjoy a leisurely lunch and return for more in the afternoon. Then they can go home and pretend they are virtuous and productive citizens.

So, why would anyone be shocked that these ghouls would further profit from selling what remains of children they have murdered? The only thing that would be shocking to me, but not surprising, would be if they were to bring about live births in order to sell live children for research. Now that I’ve thought of it, even that won’t shock me to hear of it.

Being shocked or surprised at such atrocities may not make sense, but it does make sense for humane citizens to make use of the current outrage to stop the practice of abortion in our country. It is essential that law enforcement organizations at various levels of government investigate just what Planned Parenthood does. Multiple states have already instituted investigations, and some in Congress are planning to do so. Besides gathering actionable evidence, this should have the added benefit of keeping the atrocities in the notoriously short lived eye and mind of the public.

Once the evidence has been gathered to support charges, participants in any currently illegal Planned Parenthood activities need to be charged and punished. At the same time, obviously all state and federal funding for the organization must be terminated. And finally, we the people need to elect a president and congressmen who will do their duty to protect the lives of all Americans, born and unborn, by making abortion illegal nationwide.

]]>http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/are-you-shocked-at-planned-parenthood-atrocities/feed/0267Thy Kingdom Comehttp://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/thy-kingdom-come/
http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/thy-kingdom-come/#commentsSat, 27 Jun 2015 16:21:30 +0000http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/?p=233This week has seen two decisions added to the infamous record of the US Supreme Court: Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, Roe v. Wade; and now King v. Burwell and Obergefell v. Hodges. King v. Burwell effectively changed the Affordable Care Law to ignore the clear meaning of the words “established by the state,” in […]

]]>This week has seen two decisions added to the infamous record of the US Supreme Court: Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, Roe v. Wade; and now King v. Burwell and Obergefell v. Hodges.

King v. Burwell effectively changed the Affordable Care Law to ignore the clear meaning of the words “established by the state,” in effect changing the wording to “established by the state or federal government.” This is a clear violation of Article I of the Constitution: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” Six justices usurped legislative power, a high crime and violation of their oaths of office.

Just days later, in Obergefell v. Hodges, five of those six justices — even Chief Justice Roberts couldn’t stomach this excess — misappropriated the power of the states by changing the definition of marriage. The edict establishing government sanction of homosexual “marriage” also is a high crime and violation of the justices’ oaths of office. Why do we need Congress, when we have the Supreme Court to rule our nation and make our laws for us?

Many have documented these blatant violations of the Constitution by the federal courts. Many are also proposing solutions. The correct response is for Congress to remove the six worst justices via impeachment. We all know this will never happen, given the contempt exhibited by most members of Congress for the Constitution.

Senator Ted Cruz has proposed a constitutional amendment to make justices stand for recall election on an eight year cycle. Though I am generally cautious about amendments, I would support that approach, though I would prefer to see a requirement for re-confirmation by the Senate super-majority. The Framers of the Constitution were not perfect, so they did not foresee the extent of the judiciary’s lust for power; the degree of spinelessness that Congress has evolved; or the growing ignorance of the electorate about the nature and purpose of our Constitution. Cruz’s proposal would at least give us some hope of eventually reversing the abominable choices made by the president and Senate.

Some local political jurisdictions are deciding to stop issuing any marriage licenses, so all couples of whatever kind would be treated the same. I proposed this back in 1999 in a newspaper column, and received lots of verbal abuse in response. This is still a good idea, and I hope that it gains momentum at the state level. To go along with this, of course we need to remove tax incentives and whatever other government benefits are associated with marriage.

What does all of this have to do with the “Thy kingdom come” petition of the Lord’s Prayer? The degeneration of society is to be expected in the years approaching the Second Coming of Jesus. The government sanction of homosexual “marriage” is a new low in human moral history. It’s not Sodom and Gomorrah, in that we don’t yet have homosexual rape mobs ruling the streets; but it is something that even those condemned cities apparently never thought of.

I see two ways to think of “Thy kingdom come.” It can be a petition that the Christian Gospel would be spread far and wide and be accepted by the hearers. It can also be a petition that Jesus would return and cut short the persecution of His people, the church. Either one is especially appropriate in light of the direction our society is headed. Which one it will be we leave to the next of the petitions: “Thy will be done.”

]]>http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/thy-kingdom-come/feed/2233Fast Track Takes Us Down the Rabbit Holehttp://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/fast-track-takes-us-down-the-rabbit-hole/
http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/fast-track-takes-us-down-the-rabbit-hole/#respondSat, 06 Jun 2015 19:47:13 +0000http://www.chainsoftheconstitution.com/?p=229Since 1974, Congress has frequently ceded the Senate’s power to accept (ratify) or decline treaties, under the so-called Fast Track trade negotiating authority. First given to Gerald Ford by the Trade Act of 1974, Fast Track allows the president to negotiate a trade related treaty with foreign powers, then submit it to Congress for approval […]

]]>Since 1974, Congress has frequently ceded the Senate’s power to accept (ratify) or decline treaties, under the so-called Fast Track trade negotiating authority. First given to Gerald Ford by the Trade Act of 1974, Fast Track allows the president to negotiate a trade related treaty with foreign powers, then submit it to Congress for approval by a majority, without amendments. This circumvents the constitutional procedure of the president presenting the treaty to the Senate for debate, followed by potential reservations, and a ratification vote, which requires a two thirds majority to pass. Under Fast Track, no amendments or reservations are allowed, and passage requires only a majority vote.

The current attempt by President Obama and the establishment Republican congressional leadership to implement a version of Fast Track is intended to grease the skids for passage of several trade agreements: the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Parnership (TTIP) and others. The proponents of these treaties position them as “free trade” bills that should make American goods more competitive internationally. What they actually do is to set up international bureaucracies with legislative powers that supersede the powers granted to Congress. (<– Please do click that link)

The treaties themselves are inherently unconstitutional. The Constitution does not grant to Congress the power to delegate its own legislative authority to anyone, least of all a foreign body. Congress also has no constitutional authority to grant judicial powers to others. But cases that arise out of these treaties will be decided by the bureaucrats who administer the bodies created by the treaties. Americans would have to live with the decrees of the “administrative law judges,” since US courts would not be authorized to interfere.

So what we have is an unconstitutional process being used to implement unconstitutional treaties. We have congressional leadership, including especially the Republican Senate and House leadership, colluding with the least trustworthy president in generations, to grant that president carte blanch to negotiate the treaties, with almost no possibility of failure to ratify them. Most bizarrely of all, we find ourselves having to rely on sleazy congressional Democrats and their union allies to prevent all of this: right at home in Alice in Wonderland.